Mythbuster: The truth about the unions

As the Tories and their pals in the press ratchet up the anti-strike rhetoric, Red Pepper knocks down some of the myths they throw at the unionsNovember 2011

MYTH: Unions strike at the ﬁrst opportunity, without a thought for the consequences

Nobody takes the decision to strike lightly. Strikes are very expensive – the cost to the unions of 30 November, including ballots, will be millions of pounds. Union members will sacriﬁce up to £100 million in pay altogether.

The unions are taking action because other options have been blocked by the government. It effectively froze negotiations. It is only the threat of strikes that has led to any change in the government’s position.

When the unions do eventually decide they have to resort to strikes, they discuss with employers to organise emergency cover and ensure that no one is in danger and vulnerable people are not harmed.

Home care for the elderly, urgent operations and accident and emergency departments all continue to function. Unions agree with employers that enough people are exempt from the strike to make sure this is the case.

MYTH: Unions are just a ‘lobby group’ for workers’ selﬁsh interests

Public sector workers are less motivated by their own pay and conditions than by a strong public service ethos. 53 per cent of NHS staff regularly work additional unpaid hours over and above their contract (Annual NHS Staff Survey). The most common reason for working unpaid hours was ‘because I want to provide the best care I can’.

Public sector unions play a key social justice role, campaigning for decent public services for all. They would like to be striking to this end, but that is illegal. They are only allowed to take action over their own pay and conditions.

But good conditions are part of ensuring quality public services – after all, services will be better if the workers providing them are secure about their futures, rather than anxious.

Unions can hardly be accused of representing ‘sectional interests’ when they do so much campaigning on wider issues such as anti-racism and freedom for Palestine.

MYTH: Unions are a thing of the past – a declining minority of the workforce

The unions are constantly renewing themselves. Many trade unions are in fact growing as they reach out to new groups. For example, Unison signed up 160,000 new members last year – 27,000 of them aged under 30. Unions are also on the rise internationally as more of the world is industrialised and workers start to ﬁght for their rights.

Deindustrialisation and legal attacks have reduced the number in unions in the UK since the 1970s. But with nearly seven million members (National Statistics), trade unions are still the largest voluntary organisations in the country.

And another estimated 3.3 million non-union workers are covered by collective agreements negotiated by a union.

MYTH: Unions are a drag on the economy

Government-commissioned research shows that unions bring an identiﬁable range of beneﬁts to the economy, and the taxpayer, worth up to £1.1 billion every year (‘Workplace representatives: a review of their facilities and facility time’, BERR). This is through their contribution to dispute resolution, reductions in workplace injuries and work-related illnesses, and improved take-up of training.

There are also productivity gains worth up to £12 billion (‘The Facts About Facility Time’, TUC) thanks to improved morale and employee engagement, among other factors.

Even the International Monetary Fund has published research (‘Inequality, Leverage and Crises’, IMF) suggesting that union bargaining helps maintain economic stability, by keeping a lid on inequalities and putting a brake on runaway expansions of household debt.

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman says: ‘If we want a society of broadly shared prosperity … we need to restore the bargaining power that labour has lost over the last 30 years, so that ordinary workers as well as superstars have the power to bargain for good wages.’

MYTH: Unions only care about the public sector, where most of their members work

The government talks a lot about how ‘unfair’ unions are for private sector workers – but workers in the private sector won’t beneﬁt one jot from an attack on the public sector.

The public sector’s conditions are better because unions have fought to maintain standards in the face of a race to the bottom. Union members’ hourly earnings are around 17 per cent higher than those of non-union members.

Unions face enormous challenges recruiting and organising in the private sector because of the nature of much employment. But millions of private sector workers are in unions – and millions more who are not in a union would like to join one. Unions want to level up, not race to the bottom.

According to the British Workplace Representation and Participation Survey, 46 per cent of employees in non-unionised workplaces say they would become members if unions were enabled to recruit and organise there. That alone would easily take total union membership above 50 per cent nationally.

MYTH: Unions are pale, male and stale

In fact, unions have been working continually to address inequalities and secure greater participation and representation of women, black and ethnic minorities, disabled and young people ever since the social movements of the 1970s transformed understandings of inequality and work.

Unison, for example, has over a million women members – more than two thirds of the union. Women’s representation is growing across the unions, and many now actively encourage women to get involved and become reps.

It’s taken time and struggle, and there’s still a lot to be done, but unions score higher than most institutions on diversity and equalities – including not just businesses but also political parties. Young people today are far more likely to join a union than a political party.

MYTH: Unions are undemocratic, with ‘union barons’ ordering members to strike

The very role of a trade union is to provide democratic representation of its members in the workplace. The right to form and join trade unions is generally considered to be a fundamental part of any democratic society, and is speciﬁcally mentioned in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 23).

Unions spread a culture of democracy. Research suggests high levels of union membership are linked to democratic participation more generally, such as voting in elections and campaigning in the community (‘The Everyday Democracy Index’, Demos).

Union leaders are elected democratically by a ballot of every member. Policy is made through the unions’ democratic structures, such as annual delegate conferences. As with any democratic institution there are ﬂaws, and improvements must be fought for, but in few organisations are the leaders as accountable as they are in the unions.

No strike can take place without the support of at least 50 per cent of those voting by postal ballot. Two out of every three MPs didn’t get 50 per cent of the vote at the last general election.

MYTH: Unions are unpopular

Trade unions’ portrayal in the media could make you think that they are universally despised. But surveys show that this is far from the case.

Even at the height of the attack on the unions, when MORI opinion polls found a majority of people agreeing that unions were ‘run by militants’, 73 per cent still agreed that unions are essential to protect workers’ interests’. Today 76 per cent say they are essential.

A ComRes opinion poll at the time of the smaller pensions strikes in June this year found that a majority of the public thought ‘public sector workers are right to take strike action’. With up to three million set to strike on 30 November, these arguments are ones we can win.

“No strike can take place without the support of at least 50 per cent of those voting by postal ballot. Two out of every three MPs didn’t get 50 per cent of the vote at the last general election.”

To this I’d point out that strike ballots have two answers – Yes or No. One of the results *has* to be 50%+ (If no majority, they’ll both be 50% of course)

What’s the average number of people contesting a parliamentary seat? It’ll be more than two. Which makes it much more unlikely that the “majority” will be more than 50% of the electorate.

Not a fair comparison.

My issue with this strike is the turnout – from my quick calcs of results, around 20-25% of union members voted Yes, the remainder didn’t vote Yes. That isn’t democratic. I think unions should take care not to reduce democracy to only considering the views of those who return a ballot… The words coming from union leaders (“overwhelming Yes vote”, etc.) are dismissive of those who voted No or didn’t vote (for whatever reason). I expect that of MPs, not of unions.

Votes/surveys/ballots are often more complex than a yes or a no – these strikes are one of those situations, hence the need for this Mythbuster. And too late, perhaps.

David 23 November 2011, 16.47

PS my view about undemocratic elections applies to General Elections as well – a majority of voters can not be said to represent the view of the majority of people.

Of the 30% of people who responded to the ballot, more than three quarters voted to strike. So, the number of people who said ‘No’ was only 6.6% of the union.

By your implied rules the union would be forced to choose a third option between Yes and No, as neither of those got a majority. What exactly would that option be?

As more than three times as many people voted yes than no, having a strike is the only option.

Paul 24 November 2011, 11.57

David, 100% of the membership were given the chance to vote and lots didn’t. If they are too lazy or too disinterested to vote yes or no, I am sorry then they cannot complain.
If they don’t want to strike they should have taken all that energy it takes to put a cross on a piece of paper and then the tiring task of putting that paper in an envelope. That had a democratic right to do so and chose not to.
We currently have an unelected government on a small turn out that are crippling the country and yet they have the hypocrisy to point fingers at the results of the unions.
I am not in favour of the strikes as I feel the unions are playing into the hands of a government that wants them to strike for many reasons, but, the law says it has to be over fifty percent of those that voted so I have to respect the majority.

Keith 24 November 2011, 12.22

not voting in a union ballot is not the same as not voting in a general election: genuine disinterest and apathy can be inferred from a lack of voting in a general election, but in a union vote, it is fair to assume that if a member abstains from a vote, it is because they dont have strong feelings either way, or dont feel informed enough, but are happy to abide by the decisions of those who do vote – that seems to me to be a fundamental principle of a union, the idea that you will support your colleagues

If unions were allowed to do workplace ballots turnouts would increase. However, the government’s anti-union laws make this illegal. Ballots get lost in the post, people may fill it out wrong, people forget to send them in on time etc. This could all be changed if they allowed workplace ballots.

However, if turnouts increase it gets rid of the governments chief argument about legitimacy. Funny no one raises these questions about MPs.

Wendy 24 November 2011, 22.37

I pay my dues. I have not had a ballot paper neither have I had any communication regarding this issue or information on the result of the supposed ballot. I have had a ballot on whether my union should join another union so they have my details correct…I don’t believe negotiations have been concluded. I don’t believe 75% of 50% is a conclusive reason to strike it means less than half have said yes. Dilemma.

The strike is legal, it’s ethical, it’s moral, and it’s right. Many are so ground down, they’ve given up. At least let those who still give a s**t to try to fight.

Mark 7 December 2011, 18.03

The problem with the current system of balloting is that it has the potential of providing an entirely false picture of the depth of support for action. Union leaders will state that they have ‘overwhelming support’ based on the fact that 75% of the ballot papers returned were in favour of such action. But as has been pointed out, the majority in this instance didn’t return a ballot paper. So there wasn’t ‘overwhelming support’ but it makes a good soundbite. On the day reality sets in. There will be those who voted for action who will keep to their word, but there will be those who either didn’t vote, voted no or changed their mind from the yes vote they sent in, who will work normally. The union leaders will point to the number of marchers/pickets etc and claim a resounding success, whilst the bosses/government will smile and nod as the organisations continue to function. Both sides will claim victory, just as both will seek to poor scorn on the other’s claims of victory. Nothing will change. What it demonstrates is the inability of union leaders to motivate the grass roots. The issues that those higher up the food chain in organisations see as being important are lost on those at the sharp end. The concerns of the ordinary worker fail to reach the ears of those senior people. The message gets corrupted in the retelling – chinese whispers reigns supreme. It used to be the case that workers thought that employers had too many layers of management, but now they are faced with union organisations that are every bit as convoluted. Time to go back to the drawing board.